The 10-22mm has an equivalent of 16mm at the widest angle - that's pretty wide.

In low light the 18-55mm IS lens is limited as the aperture is not that "good" and the 50mm 1.8 is limited as it has no IS.

With the 18-55mm you can shoot 18mm F3.5 at abou 1/10 - 1/15 of a second and get some nice pictures out of it.
With the 50mm you shouldn't shoot with a lower speed than 1/50 (or better 1/80) but with the aperture of 1.8 you get about 4x more light so in the end it's about the same. The 50mm is more "freezing" the action if something moves. BUT with the 1.8 aperture you have a pretty shallow depth of field which isn't what you might always want. Also you are limited to 50mm (x1,6=80mm).

I did some pictures with both lenses at night. Personally I prefer the 18-55mm at night - maybe that would change with a 50mm IS (which doesn't exist) or a 30mm lens.

Thank you again Jiko. i m not professional. (but i can learn everyhing fast:) )
i dont know for example IS. (image stabilizer ?? )if it means image stabilizer, for low light situation, i need a lens with image stabilizer. it logic that lights should not move during shooting.
i know that (since i have seen this website thanks Gordon) for a night shooting aperture is important. it must be at least lower than2,8.
i also know for low light situation i should use low iso.
But i dont understand somethings. for example with canon ixus 60 (800 iso) i have taken some birds from 2-3meter. now i have a photo 50*70 over my pc it seems really sharpe. i thought, with a SLR i can take better pictures but i m not so impressed with the resaults that i see in internet. i must say, i dont see very sharp pictures. Maybe because of resolutions. high resolution shows noise too.

For example Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM wide angel. But how can you understand ? And it has f,3-5 and not IS. so it is not suitable for night shooting ? In Specifications there is nothing about 16mm wide lens. If could answer my post, i will understand something better. Thanks again.

Low ISO at night should only be used on a tripodt - handheld you probably need higher ISO in order to get faster shutter speeds.

IS = Image Stabilizer. It helps getting sharper images handheld - so it's not needed if you use a tripod. Longer exposures are getting possible.

The aperture of "at least lower than 2.8" is needed handheld as well - not on a tripod. The lower the number the shorter the shutter speed.

The 10-22mm lens is a zoom lens - the widest angle is 10mm. But it can only be used on cameras with crop frame sensor (smaller sensor than full frame; meaning the corners of the pictures are "cut away"). With Canon's crop frame sensors the crop factor is "x1.6". So if you are using the 10-22mm at 10mm you get a focal length of 16mm. Another example: The 18-55mm starts at about 29mm and ends at 88mm.
This lens is suitable for night shooting on a tripod or if you can manage to shoot handheld at shutter speeds of not less than 1/10 (or better 1/20 or higher) of a second.

If the camera is on a tripod the shutter speed doesn't matter if you are shooting still objects. It always depends on what you want to shoot and if you want to do it by hand or if a tripod is OK.

One example:
For that picture I used an aperture of 11 and ISO 200, exposure time 30 seconds:

You don't need IS, high ISO or an aperture of 2.8 for that. With that aperture of 2.8 the picture definitely wouldn't be that sharp - but you could blur the background very nice - so that's nice for portraits.

Shorter answer: If you are shooting moving objects you need faster shutter speeds - you probably don't need a tripod for that. That means higher ISO and wide open aperture (2.8 or even 1.8 or something like that).
If you are shooting still objects you can use a tripod and don't need that big apertures or high ISO.

So if you need the faster shutter speeds and higher ISO you should take a look at the Nikon D7000 which can handle high ISO (especially above 1600) quite a bit better as you can see here:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon ... JPEG.shtmlThe result at ISO 6400 looks pretty impressive on the D7000 compared to the EOS 60D. And man - it's a 100% crop!

Again thank you very much Jiko.
I have two more (and last) questions.
Why don´t have some lenses IS, they are very expensive.I think they prefered to be without IS, dont they ?.so is there any disadvanteges having IS in a lens ? And samething about aparture. Is it a marketing strategy or is there any disadvantege of for example 1,8 aparture ? For example Gordon has list of different catogories of lenses for potrait, architectural (i understand wide lenses for architectural photography) and for night shooting aperture etc. Why dont they build a lenses that is suitable for potrait, close up photography and everyday photograpy. i m asking this, because i want to make good night shooting. But if there is a disadvantages of a apeture, it is not so important.

P.s.
1-i dont now how could you catch that flash but it is really nice

2-Nikon 7000´s 6400 iso result seems really outclass 60D. i dont now, how can i buy 60D after see that different

In my opinion the D7000 IS better than the 60D.
Only some video options of the Canon are really better than the D7000, and not to forget the burst mode is significantly better.

Dont understand me wrong, the 60D is good, but the D7000 is better in more aspects than the 60D is better than the D7000. That doesnt mean though the 60D is bad or cant make that quality pictures as the D7000 can.
I shoot with a 350D from 2005 which can take excelent photos even when there's the 5D MkII.

Thanks Gordon. The review confirms what I've held for awhile that the D7000 may be marginally better but in reality the average user will not see a difference. There is not much between the D7000 and 60D including the A55 & K5 (the K5 being closest to semi-pro). Any one of them is a great camera.

Quote:

What does become clear though after shooting for some time with both the D7000 and EOS 60D is how there's less between them than originally thought from the specifications. At launch, the D7000 appeared to trump all but the video capabilities on the EOS 60D, but in our tests, the Canon could shoot continuously for much longer, while enjoying more reliable metering and suffering from no focusing errors.

Don't get us wrong, the D7000 isn't a poor camera. On the contrary it's very good and one we can easily Recommend, but it's neither the budget semi-pro DSLR nor EOS 60D thrasher which many expected when the camera was announced.

Great job Gordon - I really enjoyed the review!

...my take on page 17 of this thread:

Quote:

On paper the D7000 looks to beat the 60D in most respects but for me ergonomically the 60D is so much better. I really like the D90/7000 and have tried to convince myself that it is the camera to buy but I just cannot. In reality IQ, weight, size, FPS, ISO and AF are almost the same for the D7000 and 60D

...the question comes down to the "far better specs of the D7000". Other than to say I have the best specked "mid-range" DSLR, what, if any, advantages over the 60D do they offer the rookie? Very little actually ...

Also, if I intend to upgrade later, as I find the 7D a better fit than the D300s, does it make any sense for me to even consider the D7000?

With the recent price drops on the 60D the gap between it and the 7D grow larger. I'm starting to wonder if I should just cave and get the 60D or if the 19 point auto focus on the 7D is worth the >$500 difference?

Or should I just sit tight to see if the rumored 60D and 7D rebates occur on 2/20?

First let me say that I am in love with my 40D! I am experiencing a little nudging angst about upgrading to the 60D and am wondering for those who have done this swap, do you feel it was worth it? I am not much into video, so that is not a consideration, but I am interested if any of you can give me your impressions of the value of upgrading from the 40D to the 60D. I believe I will always stay with Canon because of my lens investment, otherwise I'd probably consider the Nikon D7000.

It just seems I always find myself "behind the economic curve" with things. The 40D does everything I want it to do, but its value declines faster than a newer model. At some point there will be a feature/function released with a new camera that I really want to have, but won't be able to offset the cost very much with the 40D like a newer model (i.e., 60D) would. Pretty crass, I know...